Romney to Donors: Obama Won Because of “Gifts” to Minorities

This should really come as no surprise; it’s totally consistent with the messages of the Romney campaign, which made it a prime tenet that there was a segment of America that just wanted “free stuff.” Romney even had the gall to say this to the NAACP when he addressed them (and was booed for it), so it’s no big secret that he feels this way.

Mitt Romney told his top donors Wednesday that his loss to President Obama was a disappointing result that neither he nor his top aides had expected, but said he believed his team ran a “superb” campaign with “no drama,” and attributed his rival’s victory to “the gifts” the administration had given to blacks, Hispanics and young voters during Obama’s first term.

Obama, Romney argued, had been “very generous” to blacks, Hispanics and young voters. He cited as motivating factors to young voters the administration’s plan for partial forgiveness of college loan interest and the extension of health coverage for students on their parents’ insurance plans well into their 20s. Free contraception coverage under Obama’s healthcare plan, he added, gave an extra incentive to college-age women to back the president.

The GOP will not change because racism isn't just a tactic for them. The party is racist and run by racist from top to bottom. This is who they are. It's not just words to stir up the base This is what they feel and what they believe. Period, full stop.

The GOP will not change because racism isn't just a tactic for them. The party is racist and run by racist from top to bottom. This is who they are. It's not just words to stir up the base This is what they feel and what they believe. Period, full stop.

Bill Clinton changed the Democratic Party, but his candidacy was built on the foundation established by the DLC. There is no equivalent to the DLC in the GOP, because all the centrists in the party have been slain in the great RINO hunt.

The GOP will not change because racism isn't just a tactic for them. The party is racist and run by racist from top to bottom. This is who they are. It's not just words to stir up the base This is what they feel and what they believe. Period, full stop.

Fifteen years ago, maybe ten, I would have disagreed with this sentiment. At that time, they were present, but hadn't gotten a stranglehold on the party structure at its core constituency as of yet. The warning signs were there, even as far back as the 1980s, but the party leadership chose to have a much higher tolerance level toward them than they ever deserved.

Nowadays (I hate using this term, but it's so damned accurate), the cancer invading the RNC has metastasized, and has in process of consuming the entire body.

Before running for the Senate, Ted Cruz headed a major law firm's Supreme Court practice. He upset the Republican Establishment's candidate, wealthy TX lieutenant governor David Dewhurst, in the primary.

"Better to keep your mouth closed and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt."
-Attributed to Ben Franklin, Abraham Lincoln and Mark Twain, and no one is really sure who actually said it, but nonetheless is a cherished principle among many great leaders

Granted, but the post-Watergate pushback stemmed the growth for over half a decade. Even with the likes of Buchanan and the "Southern Strategy" folks, it wasn't until the so-called "Reagan Revolution" that caused a fundamental shift to the right on social issues.

Yes, because saying those who didn't vote for you only voted for the other guy because the are bunch of cheap whores who will vote for anyone who waves a $20 in front of them is certainly the way to bring them over to your side.

This is why they won't vote for you, Mitt. You hold them in contempt, and make no attempt to hide it.

Before running for the Senate, Ted Cruz headed a major law firm's Supreme Court practice. He upset the Republican Establishment's candidate, wealthy TX lieutenant governor David Dewhurst, in the primary.

This nutcase is my new senator. He's a climate change denier and wants to get rid of the EPA. He's dumb too.

Yes, because saying those who didn't vote for you only voted for the other guy because the are bunch of cheap whores who will vote for anyone who waves a $20 in front of them is certainly the way to bring them over to your side.

This is why they won't vote for you, Mitt. You hold them in contempt, and make no attempt to hide it.

The part that really makes me mad is this:

Free contraception coverage under Obama’s healthcare plan, he added, gave an extra incentive to college-age women to back the president.

College-age women are not the only women who are fertile. And even infertile women have sympathy for those who are. Hell, even most men care about contraception. Romney is the least empathetic candidate for president I can remember.

Fifteen years ago, maybe ten, I would have disagreed with this sentiment. At that time, they were present, but hadn't gotten a stranglehold on the party structure at its core constituency as of yet. The warning signs were there, even as far back as the 1980s, but the party leadership chose to have a much higher tolerance level toward them than they ever deserved.

Nowadays (I hate using this term, but it's so damned accurate), the cancer invading the RNC has metastasized, and has in process of consuming the entire body.

College-age women are not the only women who are fertile. And even infertile women have sympathy for those who are. Hell, even most men care about contraception. Romney is the least empathetic candidate for president I can remember.

Isn't... isn't voting in the interests of yourself and those around you the whole idea? What would I vote on if not the interests of my society?

Free contraception coverage under Obama’s healthcare plan, he added, gave an extra incentive to college-age women to back the president.

Yeah. "We don't have a problem with women, we just think they're a bunch of silly selfish slatterns willing to sell the country down the river in exchange for free slut-pills." And then they wonder why women don't vote for them.

If you define "never having to convince someone your rape was 'legitimate'" and "never having to hear 'papers please' because you're driving through Arizona and have a skosh too much melanin" as "gifts", then I suppose this argument might have some small degree of merit.

...
The 2012 Republican nominee avoided any recriminations about his team or a second-guessing of their efforts, calling the organization “a very solid team that got along” – an attribute he said he hoped would be reflected in the 2012 campaign books that are being written.
...

What a gutless wonder --- pre-emptive whining about the inevitable tell-all books.

Here's a clue by four for you, Mitt: "superb" campaigns do not include:

1) Dancing on the graves of dead US diplomats before the bodies are cold.

2) Being "multiple choice Mitt" on all issues, such that even your supporters had no idea what you'd actually try to do in office, other than cut your own taxes.

3) Entering the Mittness protection program (i.e., hiding from the press) once it was apparent that your every attempt to explain yourself outside a cocoon of the Party Faithful was driving down your polling numbers.

1964 and 1965 led directly to the Southern Strategy.
Ronald Reagan praised states rights and opened the door to evangelicals.
Jesse Helms warned his constituents of the "Black Hands" coming to take "stuff" away from hard working Americans. Etc., etc., etc.

This stuff has been a long time in the making, and many of us were keenly aware of the GOP pattern of behavior long before Fox and Rush.

The difference now, is the animus which has been festering just below the surface, has been given a voice by RW media and the internet, so everyone can see it.

And I want to add, that I firmly believe that all of the vitriol against public education can be linked directly back to desegregation.

What a gutless wonder --- pre-emptive whining about the inevitable tell-all books.

Here's a clue by four for you, Mitt: "superb" campaigns do not include:

1) Dancing on the graves of dead US diplomats before the bodies are cold.

2) Being "multiple choice Mitt" on all issues, such that even your supporters had no idea what you'd actually try to do in office, other than cut your own taxes.

3) Entering the Mittness protection program (i.e., hiding from the press) once it was apparent that your every attempt to explain yourself outside a cocoon of the Party Faithful was driving down your polling numbers.

1964 and 1965 led directly to the Southern Strategy.
Ronald Reagan praised states rights and opened the door to evangelicals.
Jesse Helms warned his constituents of the "Black Hands" coming to take "stuff" away from hard working Americans. Etc., etc., etc.

This stuff has been a long time in the making, and many of us were keenly aware of the GOP pattern of behavior long before Fox and Rush.

The difference now, is the animus which has been festering just below the surface, has been given a voice by RW media and the internet, so everyone can see it.

And I want to add, that I firmly believe that all of the vitriol against public education can be linked directly back to desegregation.

Racism is in their bones.

True, to some extent, but I will submit that until relatively recently, the racism was pushed beneath the surface to a great extent - they didn't embrace it to anywhere near the level that they do today.

As an example, the Republican Party at least had the intelligence in 1991 to publicly oppose David Duke's run for Louisiana Governor on their party's ticket during the runoff election that he qualified for.

I honestly can't say that today's Republican Party would distance themselves from an unapologetic racist, like they did back then.

Yes, because saying those who didn't vote for you only voted for the other guy because the are bunch of cheap whores who will vote for anyone who waves a $20 in front of them is certainly the way to bring them over to your side.

This is why they won't vote for you, Mitt. You hold them in contempt, and make no attempt to hide it.

(unlike all those Bush voters who were swayed by their $300 refund checks...)

1964 and 1965 led directly to the Southern Strategy.
Ronald Reagan praised states rights and opened the door to evangelicals.
Jesse Helms warned his constituents of the "Black Hands" coming to take "stuff" away from hard working Americans. Etc., etc., etc.

This stuff has been a long time in the making, and many of us were keenly aware of the GOP pattern of behavior long before Fox and Rush.

The difference now, is the animus which has been festering just below the surface, has been given a voice by RW media and the internet, so everyone can see it.

And I want to add, that I firmly believe that all of the vitriol against public education can be linked directly back to desegregation.

Racism is in their bones.

Difficult to disagree. I think it started with the GOP establishment $$$ not really being all that racist, but willing to use racism to get people to vote against their interests (Southern Strategy).

But it is now a big business to feed the GOP crazy, and so their establishment now appears to be thoroughly infected by the madness of the rubes, including racism, misogyny, hating on the gays, and denial of reality. Their failure to see the election results coming seems much like some kind of public psychotic break from reality.

True, to some extent, but I will submit that until relatively recently, the racism was pushed beneath the surface to a great extent - they didn't embrace it to anywhere near the level that they do today.

As an example, the Republican Party at least had the intelligence in 1991 to publicly oppose David Duke's run for Louisiana Governor on their party's ticket during the runoff election that he qualified for.

I honestly can't say that today's Republican Party would distance themselves from an unapologetic racist, like they did back then.

You're trying to paint a moving boxcar. The GOP and Dems have been realigning for a hundred years. In the decades you cite, the shift was not as complete as now. If you look at the RW, disregarding their local and temporal letterhead, racism is a core part of their package.

“You can imagine for somebody making $25,000 or $30,000 or $35,000 a year, being told you’re now going to get free health care, particularly if you don’t have it, getting free health care worth, what, $10,000 per family, in perpetuity, I mean, this is huge,”

OMG FREE health coverage for poor people!

Even if they're making $35,000! Still shiftless bastards!

“Likewise with Hispanic voters, free health care was a big plus. But in addition with regards to Hispanic voters, the amnesty for children of illegals, the so-called Dream Act kids, was a huge plus for that voting group.”

True, to some extent, but I will submit that until relatively recently, the racism was pushed beneath the surface to a great extent - they didn't embrace it to anywhere near the level that they do today.

As an example, the Republican Party at least had the intelligence in 1991 to publicly oppose David Duke's run for Louisiana Governor on their party's ticket during the runoff election that he qualified for.

I honestly can't say that today's Republican Party would distance themselves from an unapologetic racist, like they did back then.

Well, as I said, it was festering just below the surface.
The black guy in the boss's seat was a bridge too far, and it opened up the wound.

Not if they thought he might win. Winning is the only standard for the GOP. Nothing else even comes close.

In the case that I cited, David Duke had a very strong second-place finish in the open primary, with the incumbent Republican governor (Buddy Roemer) coming in a fairly distant third place. Duke carried a significant majority of parishes in the state in both the primary as well as the runoff election. If the Republican establishment had swung support to Duke, instead of actively campaigning against him, he WOULD have won.

In the case that I cited, David Duke had a very strong second-place finish in the open primary, with the incumbent Republican governor (Buddy Roemer) coming in a fairly distant third place. Duke carried a significant majority of parishes in the state in both the primary as well as the runoff election. If the Republican establishment had swung support to Duke, instead of actively campaigning against him, he WOULD have won.

I was at a family reunion in LA. in 1990. Our hotel right was across the street from, if I recall correctly, his headquarters.
When my family and I met over at Shoney's, we got called all kinds of lovely names...

You're trying to paint a moving boxcar. The GOP and Dems have been realigning for a hundred years. In the decades you cite, the shift was not as complete as now. If you look at the RW, disregarding their local and temporal letterhead, racism is a core part of their package.

This raises an interesting question. Is it possible for there to be a further realignment of the two parties, of the kind that has happened before?

My 2 cents is that the Democratic party can (and will) change, mainly by absorbing ex-republicans. However, it seems impossible for the present-day version of the Republican party to change.

In the case that I cited, David Duke had a very strong second-place finish in the open primary, with the incumbent Republican governor (Buddy Roemer) coming in a fairly distant third place. Duke carried a significant majority of parishes in the state in both the primary as well as the runoff election. If the Republican establishment had swung support to Duke, instead of actively campaigning against him, he WOULD have won.

Would have been the same or worse than what Wallace accomplished, I believe.

I hope you're shaking your head at the moron, Ted Cruz, rather than at the thought that he might be dumb. At this point, a climate change denier is dumb, despite whatever his intellectual assets and resume say.

This raises an interesting question. Is it possible for there to be a further realignment of the two parties, of the kind that has happened before?

My 2 cents is that the Democratic party can (and will) change, mainly by absorbing ex-republicans. However, it seems impossible for the present-day version of the Republican party to change.

Well over time, as its elderly base dies off, someone with charisma and vision will bring centrists back to the GOP and wrest control of it from the neoconfederates. This could take some time; From 1860 through 1928 the Democrats won only 4 of 18 presidential elections.

Reminds me of the angry astonishment I felt when a Stanford Law student I knew defended creationism in casual coffeehouse conversation. He was definitely too smart to believe it, but his politics were wingnut, and it is politically useful for wingnuts to promote irrationality at every opportunity.

In many ways, this is more despicable than the delusions of the true believers. Calling this simply "dumb" is too kind.

I asked the Republican party to be made to look like a bunch of complete fucking idiots.

THANK YOU SANTA BARACK!

Speaking of complete fucking idiots, let's see what the owner of Free Republic has to say.

Now that the GOP-e's anointed RINO has failed to attract sufficient numbers of conservative voters (the Republican base) to defeat the most blatantly corrupt liberal, er, communist useful idiot to ever occupy the White House, they've come up with an ingenious plan. We should "moderate" our stances against liberal causes like abortion, illegal aliens, the homosexual agenda, socialized healthcare, gun control, carbon tax, recreational drugs, resisting over taxing the "wealthy," etc. Our self-appointed Republican political "experts" now say we've lost the war against socialism and therefore must run up the white flag of surrender and become just like the godless socialist democrats to "attract more moderate votes." Conservatism, ie, defending God's commandments, defending the constitution, defending the rule of law, defending life, family, country, liberty, the borders, the founding principles, the pursuit of happiness, etc, is just too extreme in the new moderate world.

NUTs to all that libtard psychobabble!!

The GOP-e and their RINO enablers can KMA!!

If you think the evangelicals and the right-wing conservative base failed to turn out for the most liberal candidate to ever run on a Republican ticket (even though he pretended to be conservative), what in the hell do you think will happen if the GOP openly moves even further to the left?

Not only no, but HELL NO we will NOT moderate our stance against abortion, same sex marriage (or any part of the homosexual agenda), gun control, government mandated/socialized health care, big spending, big borrowing, big taxing, over taxing the "wealthy," globalism, "climate change," carbon tax, the borders, the illegal alien invasion, resistance to the ridiculous liberal wars against Christianity, morality, coal, oil, gas, mining, agriculture, industry, or against moral society, capitalism and liberty itself!!

We are here, we are in your face and we will not retreat. We reload!!

Damn the RINOs, full speed ahead for God, Family, Country, Life and Liberty!!

Well over time, as its elderly base dies off, someone with charisma and vision will bring centrists back to the GOP and wrest control of it from the neoconfederates. This could take some time; From 1860 through 1928 the Democrats won only 4 of 18 presidential elections.

It will be interesting. I'm hoping for a GOP civil war as entertainment.

Speaking of civil wars, I suspect the Democratic dry spell you cite might be more sectional than ideological. Civil war grudges made the South solid Democrat and the rest of the country at least lean-R for a long time.

Lousiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) rebuffed Mitt Romney's claim that President Obama won reelection because of "gifts" to minorities and young voters, calling the statement "wrong."

"That is absolutely wrong," Jindal said at Wednesday's session of the annual Republican Governors Association meeting in Las Vegas, according to the Washington Examiner's Byron York. "I absolutely reject that notion."

Maybe smartness is not as definitive, or as extensible, as smart people would have us believe.

Maybe that sentence isn't as intelligible as you would have us believe. Seriously, no clue what you meant by that.

Denying global warming is dumb. It's dumber if it's being done by a smart person than someone who just isn't that bright. Cruz is obviously very bright. For him to deny global warming is very deeply stupid of him.

What about this do you have a problem with?

Presumably you are quoting this comment. Afaic a fatalistic vote for a candidate I'm unimpressed by and expected to lose does not qualify as "pulling for" Romney.